The Real Role for Natural Selection

by John A. Davison
September 28th, 2010

In order to understand this essay it is essential to abandon the Darwinian notion that natural selection (NS) has had a creative role in the evolutionary process. St George Mivart, William Bateson, Reginald C. Punnett, Henry Fairfield Osborn and many others had all questioned natural selection as a creative element, but Leo Berg delivered the death blow to the Darwinian model with -

“The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard.”
Nomogenesis, page 406

Berg’s contribution was to unambiguously state what NS actually does do. It prevents evolutionary change. I don’t have to explain how devastating Berg’s claim is to the Darwinian thesis nor do I have to explain why the Darwinians have always pretended that Leo Berg never existed. I have already done that in previous essays!

By accepting accept Berg’s dictum, much of what we see in modern society finds a ready explanation.

I believe that contemporary Homo sapiens is without question the animal species which exhibits the greatest morphological and psychological variability in the history of the earth. My position is that this variation has been produced entirely by the absence of NS during the recent history of our civilization. Every sexual organism exhibits a natural tendency toward variation due to the nature of the sexual process which scrambles and reassembles Mendel’s factors (genes). When NS is suspended, variation automatically increases.

One way to evaluate our present condition is to consider what Homo sapiens must have been like when he first appeared some 100,000 years ago. Wouldn’t he have been, like all other wild animals, of very uniform morphology, easily identified with a simple key? I am confident that a careful study of our morphometry as a function of time would reveal that until the eighteenth century, which marked the birth of modern medicine, man was a substantially less variable creature than he is today.

There is no question that modern medicine has kept many people alive who would have died prior to reaching reproductive age. I am a good example, having survived bouts of strep infections by having my tonsils removed as an infant and again as an eighteen year old, not to mention the removal of my inflamed appendix when I was ten. In a natural state I would never have survived to pass on my genes to future generations. I am sure many others could say much the same.

Before proceeding, I am convinced that every aspect of the human condition has a heritable basis to some extent, based largely on the studies of monozygotic (identical) twins reared in different social and physical environments. “Born That Way” by William Wright summarizes much of this evidence. These studies have revealed that in addition to physical characters, psychological features also have a heritable basis. Indeed, it is questionable if any feature of the individual’s makeup is entirely free of genetic or congenital elements.

The entire thrust of medical science has been toward the preservation of human life, certainly a noble cause. But is it good animal husbandry? That is the only question I address here. When animal and plant breeders encounter a defective individual, they don’t attempt to cure it. They destroy it.

Now here is where I tread on dangerous ground, because I run the risk of being branded a racist, a homophobe, a bigot or worse, a genocidal radical, none of which I am. My only goal is to explain how we have become the most diverse species ever to inhabit the earth.

One way to explain the incidence of homosexuality, for example, is to ask – what would be the fate of the homosexual individual in the precivilized state? Would he/she be likely to reproduce? We can ask the same question concerning any other physical or psychological deviation from what might be arbitrarily regarded as the norm by the fellow organisms who would make that judgement. Man is a social creature and his innate feelings play a major role in how he reacts to the times in which is lives. It seems to me that we live in an era much more tolerant with respect to how society reacts to departures from traditional social norms such as those that characterized society but a few generations ago. Among these are belief in a Creator, the sanctity of human life, marriage between a man and a woman and respect for the laws and principles established by our Founding Fathers little more than two centuries ago. This tolerance for deviation from the institutions that produced Western Civilization is, in my opinion, a dangerous tendency, a trend which occurred in other civilizations as they began to collapse. It seems that affluence is our greatest enemy. As technology has given us more leisure, we become more self destructive. As the old saw says – “Idle time is the devil’s handmaiden.” It was in our times of greatest strife like the American Revolution and World War II that we enjoyed the greatest optimism and displayed our greatest resolve. I am reminded of Arnold Toynbee’s celebrated summary – “The virtues of adversity,” to which we might add – “The menace of affluence.”

Our society has become more and more fractured, more polarized and less unified as natural selection no longer eliminates the unfit, the extremists, the radicals, many of whom seek to destroy the very institutions that allow them to hold and dispense their ideologies. I believe these changes result in large part from the relaxation of natural selection which once acted to preserve harmony and thereby ensure the success of human society. Our most treasured institutions and our freedoms are being threatened now as never before in our brief history as the dominant life form on the planet. These are warnings which we cannot afford to ignore any longer. The more I read about the great experiment that the American Revolution produced, the more concerned I become that it will fail.

Two of the most radical and influential figures at the present time are Clinton Richard Dawkins and his New World counterpart Paul Zachary Myers. They have each abandoned any pretense at science to dedicate their literary and “community organizing” talents to the destruction of the very institutions that allow them that opportunity. They have hundreds if not thousands of dedicated followers, a growing number of those disenchanted with traditional values, especially the ethic which gave rise to the Judeo-Christian government of our Founding Fathers. They have become rabidly anti-religious, attacking our churches and their leaders by treating them even as dangers to our social structure and harmful to our youth.

In reading John Wain’s excellent biography – “Samuel Johnson” – I came upon Wain’s perfect description of Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Meyers -

“The average “intellectual,” especially, is the reverse of intellectual in his handling of theoretical questions. His deductive chain starts with self and ends at self. Because he has been ill at ease within the family, he wants to abolish the family. Because the power structure of his society does not automatically waft him to a position of unrestricted authority, he wants to abolish the power structure.”
page 46.

Isn’t that precisely what both Dawkins and Myers are doing? They both loathe the Judeo-Christian ethic on which Western Civilization was built. We have a similar mentalilty in the White House in the person of Barack Hussein Obama. The so-called “intellectual class” is anything but intellectual. It is pernicious and destructive, anxious to eliminate the freedom of the individual to control his own destiny, the feature that has always separated the United States of America from the rest of the world.

The concept of “self” to which John Wain alludes is apparent in Richard Dawkins’ first book – “The Selfish Gene,” pehaps the most bizarre assertion in the history of science. On that foundation Dawkins has produced several more books each dependent on its predecessor, culminating with another manifestation of self as the dust jacket proclaims -


Robert H. Bork in his book “Slouching Towards Gommorah” offered a similar appraisal of the “intellectual class” -

“Some of our elites – Professors, journalists, makers of motion pictures and television entertainment, et al – delight in nihilism and destruction as much as do the random killers in our steets. Their weapons are just different. But who, familiar with the academic world, to take a single instance, has not seen the destructive ideas spread by men and women, not because they mean well but because they want notoriety, influence, power or just because they enjoy laying waste the structures built by others?”
page 95

I cannot imagine two who seek “notoriety, influence and power” more fervently and effectively than Paul Zachary Meyers and Clinton Richard Dawkins. And do they not obviously enjoy “laying waste the structures built by others”? Their pontificating ego is evident in everything they have written. The frightening reality is their success in marshalling huge followings of devout, like minded radicals, all sharing the same goal – the destruction of the Judeo-Christian ethic on which Western Civilization was originally firmly established, an ethic in part, due to their concerted efforts, now in a state of advanced, progressive decay. And what do they offer in its stead but the antithesis of the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments? – Universal Atheism.

I believe that the present is a sad and possibly terminal chapter in the history of the Western World. I hate being right and sincerely hope I am wrong.